In this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, Petitioner challenged a decision of the Board of a Cooperative Educational Services [BOCES] to discontinue its reimbursing certain of its retired employees' Medicare Part B charges and eliminated its reimbursements for Medicare Part D premiums.
Petitioner also sought a judgment declaring that the BOCES violated Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1994, as amended by Chapter 22 of the Laws of 2007, the so-called "Moratorium Law", prohibiting a school district or a BOCES from diminishing its retirees' health insurance benefits unless it makes a corresponding diminution of such benefits then available to its active employees.
Supreme Court granted the Petitioner's appeal and annulled the BOCES' action. The BOCES was directed to reinstate the subject reimbursements and benefits and the Supreme Court held that the BOCES had violated the Moratorium Law. The BOCES appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's determinations, explaining:
1. The Moratorium Law "sets a minimum baseline or floor for retiree health benefits, which is measured by the health insurance benefits received by the employer's active employees";
2. A school district or BOCES "may not diminish retirees' health insurance benefits unless it makes 'a corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions of active employees'"; and
3. The purpose of the Moratorium Law "is to protect the rights of retirees who are not represented in the collective bargaining process".
The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court had correctly determined that BOCES did not make a "corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions of active employees" when it reduced the reimbursements to the Petitioner's Medicare Part B charges and eliminated reimbursements for Medicare Part D premiums.
In addition, the Appellate Division opined that "Supreme Court correctly compared the health insurance coverage offered to certain retirees to the health insurance coverage offered to the active employees" and found that BOCES' contentions to the contrary were "without merit".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division decision posted on the Internet.